thank you very much for your input, anyway I have never wanted more lands or recurring lands so Crucible of Worlds is surely out of my list, honestly I have never used a Powder Keg at 0, never.
the only time i'm forced in using that is when my opponent has a sort of outnumbered tokens like with Empty the Warrens and there, if you manage in sweeping the board, then, it's game for you.
anyway yes, Powder Keg can also not be a 4x, perhaps we can cut 2x and refill the propaganda and Back to Basics slot, that would be better, perhaps.
I noticed that with Shards of Alara we're returning, at least a little to the mono colored decks and more than that, almost everyone plays much more basic lands than before, the only matchup we really want 4x Back to Basic MD is Threshold, but that's what SB is made for.
Since we're playing 15 artifacts I would never drop 4x Thirst for Knowledge; here it is not strictly worse than Fact or Fiction.
So far, the only thing I can reasonably accept is
-2 Powder Keg
+1 Propaganda
+1 Back to Basic
Chalice of the Void anyway is really wanted here, I would never play this deck without it
Chrome Mox >> Mox Diamond
Early on, this deck is mana hungry.
You seriously don't want to miss a land drop for the first six turns atleast.
Like half the games I lose, I lose because I didn't make consistent land drops early on.
After turn 6 or so, it doesn't matter if you don't draw any more lands.
But discarding a land in your opening hand is just not an option.
Originally Posted by Poron
Hi, my name is Landstill, b2b owns me!
you really still find Landstill today? anyway ok, that depends on the meta...
4x MD imho are anyway too many, 1) because they're useless in multiple and 2) because sometime you're neither going to use them.
I would play MAX 3x MD, but perhaps even 2, and the other 2 SB.
And again, imho with 23 lands mox diamond is worth here, more than a Chrome. with 23 Lands I often have first hands with 3 or more Islands
Why are you playing MTG over Casinò' s dice so?
is there a point in your argument?
in my opinion to open with island + mox is great even "psycogically" (hope to have written this well...) because opponent doesn't know if you have a hard counter to show him. again, it can allow us Powder Keg turn 1 if needed, Propaganda turn 2 (nice), and Vedalken shackles turn 2 (big), or in certain matchups a Back to basic turn 2. Not to mention a turn 1 Chalice, that I don't really know why you snob it, but it wins matches even alone...
that's almost all our deck...
diamond > chrome here because
23 lands 37 non lands (15 artifacts) 22 imprintable cards..
diamond>chrome, and since we're playing just Islands it is even better.
my list now runs
4 Propaganda
3 Powder Keg
3 Vedalken Shackles
2 Back to Basic
as board control, the rest is the same.
Again, the requires that out of 23 Islands, you draw three of them along with a Mox Diamond in your opening hand + one card .
If you're saying, you can do that with any real consistency, I think you should get banned from tournaments for deck stacking.
Most of the time, you're going to end up with a Mox Diamond and at best 2 Lands in your opening hand and will end up missing land drops because of your decision to play Mox Diamond.
Chrome Mox I can get behind, because it doesn't make you miss early land drops while still enabling second turn Propanda's etc.
why don't you try it before?
Because it's obvious. There's no need to try, just the need to look at the probabilities. Just fulfilling the "having a MD in starting hand" condition is already 40 %.
3 Island + MD in opening hand should be around 20 % at best.
Add 5-6 % per additional draw. Or something. Gotta check MWS.
edit : MWS says :
7 cards (ie starting hand) : 18 %
7 cards + 1 draw (ie turn 1 or 2, depending on whether you're on the draw or not): 26 %
7 cards + 2 draws (turn 2 or 3) : 34 %
7 cards + 3 draws (turn 3 or 4) : 42 %
And that's also counting the occurences where MD will be drawn and not in starting hand.
if we're going to play Chrome Mox instead (and that's a choice, we really have to drop the number of lands).
max 22, so we get the 3rd Back to Basic MD.
My friend Bart played at a 40-man tournament yesterday, he went 4-0-2 and lost in the t8 quarter finals against a stiflenought deck. So he became fifth. His match-ups were;
- landstill (draw)
- 2 times 4 colour thresh (2x win)
- a faerie-like thresh build (win)
- aggro-loam (win)
-An ID (draw)
And his build was:
22 Island
4 Sower of Temptation
3 Kira, Great Glass-Spinner
1 Morphling
1 Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir
4 Force of Will
4 Counterspell
4 Force Spike
1 Spell Snare
4 Fact or Fiction
2 Echoing Truth
3 Back to Basics
3 Propaganda
2 Powder Keg
2 Vedalken Shackles
Sideboard:
4 Pithing Needle
4 Hydroblast
4 Tormod's Crypt
1 Back to Basics
1 Propaganda
1 Powder Keg
Now I know, many of you despised this build but as you can clearly see... It does have potential and imho it's worth discussing. Maybe it's not the conservative build we've all discussed over and over again, maybe it's more aggro-control than pure control, maybe it depends on a certain meta-game (all though Bart didn't know what he was going to face since he didn't play in his home town)... But what I do know is that it's strond enough to get some nice results.
Some of you linked the result of this deck to the playskills of the pilot. This is a different pilot and he also got a nice result in a meta game he didn't know.
According to ancient Norwegian myths, Team Moosebite did your sister!
These are my opinions on this list.
1) Teferi sucks. The card does way too little to justify play. It can't function as a proper kill, and, even with Sower and Kira, the effect is ignorable.
2) 4 Force Spike is waaay to much. Drawing multiples is very bad. Heck, even drawing a single one is bad in the late game. It's easily the worst topdeck ever.
3) Spell Snare is much better than Force Spike. I'd play 3-2, if I were to play them at all.
4) Echoing Truth mainboard is crap. The card will give carddisadvantage most of the times for not being able to permanently remove a threat from the board. It's especially bad against Thresh.
5) Back to Basics is sick. I really don't understand why you won't play 4. It basically is a must-counter/must-dealwith for 90% of the format. The card isn't even bad in multiples at all, because your opponent will have to deal with it anyway.
"Part of me belives that Barrin taught me meditation simply to shut me up."
-Ertai, wizard adept
http://solidarityprimer.proboards85.com/index.cgi
do you agree with this list or you have some advice?
22 Island
4 Chrome Mox
2 Morphling
4 Force of Will
4 Counterspell
3 Fact or Fiction
4 Thirst for Knowledge
3 Powder Keg
4 Propaganda
3 Back to Basic
3 Vedalken Shackles
4 Chalice of the Void
The list looks pretty solid. I don't have any experience with Thirst, but at least you play plenty of artifacts to support it.
As I said before, I'd play 4 Back to Basics. Also, Fact is better than Thirst, I'm pretty sure about that.
I'm not sure if I like chalice here. In the sideboard it might have a better place. Also, I did test Chrome Mox a bit and I personally found it to be pretty bad. I don't think a control deck like this one should rely on quick mana sources that give carddisadvantage.
"Part of me belives that Barrin taught me meditation simply to shut me up."
-Ertai, wizard adept
http://solidarityprimer.proboards85.com/index.cgi
He was technically playing 4 B2B, 1 is in the SB. After a number of playtesting sessions vs a varied gauntlet, I'm inclined to stick with that setup myself for an unknown metagame. Three of them gives a good chance to draw them by turn 3 (running Ponder instead of Ancestral), and multiples are dead against decks packing enough basics to survive, or untap effects. And while I'm uncertain of the creatures in that version, their sheer numbers in addition to Shackles might actually seal games faster than Morphlings overall. Not really sure I'm sold on that build, but it's definitely got it's merits in specific metas.
Poron, as far as your build is concerned, I'd suggest a third win condition (so Morphling isn't the only thing you heavily rely on) and what do you think your SB would look like with that setup? Also, is there any specific reason you absolutely want Chalice in here? It's probably almost always going to drop for 0 or 1, and I'm not sure what you'd be afraid of as far as opposing decks that abuse those numbers. Any insight on that choice?
Why isn't Accumulated Knowledge ran anymore? It combo'd well with FoF.
I think it was because in order to really get anything out of it one or more had to be in the yard already. Basically it was just a cantrip the first time, then card advantage the second, and so forth. Fact is just better overall, even if it requires reaching the midgame to use.
Ok, I can see your reasoning for running 3. Perhaps I'm wrong, or I'm biased because my meta is filled with decks that lose to the card.
Is Ponder any good? Would you please explain why you run this card? It seems wrong in this deck to me, for being a sorcery. What kind of Counter-package do you run with Ponder? (This is important if you want to use an early turn for Pondering) How many Ponders do you run?
"Part of me belives that Barrin taught me meditation simply to shut me up."
-Ertai, wizard adept
http://solidarityprimer.proboards85.com/index.cgi
After doing a number of games with the list that was nearly identical to Kadaj's, I just got sick of Ancestral. The decks that I really found annoying were ones that took huge advantage of the early game (a surprisingly large majority of them, really), and not having an "oh shit" button just sucked. I'd find myself with a solid hand for a variety of decks, then find myself stuck with Ancestral while praying my first 4 turns I didn't die when something left field showed up.
I swapped it for random things for a while, and just finally set myself on Ponder, because the shuffle was a better use than Brainstorm, even if it cost me the mana on my turn. Turn 1 that's not an issue, as all you have is FoW anyways. Turn 2 you would either have Counterspell or Keg, turn 3 your permanent based answers go online, and anything after that it's just U to see your draws. Most opponents that know MUC would know these kinds of plays, so you are basically bluffing them with the "Am I holding FoW or not" bit.
While I'm still not sold on it in itself, I still think it's much better off for me than Visions. Once 4 mana is on the table, FoF goes online and gets you where you need to go. That's already a turn ahead of Visions at it's fastest pace, and you really don't need other draws at that point. Chaining FoF's digs you insanely fast, and seeing 5 cards for 1 makes late game Visions so slow in comparison.
In addition, Ponder late games allow you to peek at your topdeck if you like, making FoF incredibly potent, because it's not always blind now.
To sum it up, I just like knowing what's there, and knowing I can dig when I need to. It may not net me card advantage like Visions, but it sure works better in a pinch.
I prefer Brainstorm to Ponder. However, a few people who are deeply disturbed about losing life over fetches, and thus choose not to run them, prefer to play Ponder because it can shuffle itself.
For decks that have no T1 play, don't run Spellsnare or Force Spike, sorcery speed draw isn't all that terrible. Decks with C-mox shouldn't be running it, obviously, but if you aren't going to run Brainstorm or the above counters, then I highly suggest Ponder, specifically over junkVision. Oh, beware getting dazed on 1st or second turn, even in response to FoW as you are tapped out for sorcery speed draw =)...(go brainstorm go!)
peace,
4eak
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote